www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:38:02 GMT
We certainly don't treat SGA grants as
if we are being stewards for public
rights: those records are all kept relatively
confidential in a private repo.  I'm
sure reasonable requests for a particular
SGA would be granted, but I don't recall
anyone ever asking us for that.





>________________________________
> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>; Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>

>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:32 PM
>Subject: Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
> 
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Sorry I should have looked at the actual
>> terms before commenting... yes it's clear
>> you are granting the public rights as well
>> under the SGA, and because it's discussing
>> distributions that includes version control,
>> not simply vetted releases.
>>
>> I'm not sure how you'd work out a situation
>> where we have some GPL-licensed SGA-gifted code
>> in version control that you'd like to sublicense.
>> The SGA gives you that right, but the GPL doesn't.
>> Presumably the SGA trumps the GPL here because
>> eventually we will ask some committer to change the
>> license on the GPL'd code anyway.
>>
>
>One further complexity.  What is in SVN and what is in the SGA are not
>necessarily the same.
>
>For example, with Oracle's SGA for OpenOffice, the code checked in
>included Oracle owned code, but also many 3rd party modules.  The SGA
>made it clear which subset of the files were covered by the SGA.  But
>it took the podling several months more to review the files, identify
>the 3rd party ones, classify their licenses,  and in many cases remove
>and/or replace them with permissively licensed code.  In some cases we
>found that some needed files were missing and we had to go back to
>Oracle to get a supplemental SGA.
>
>That's the benefit of the effort we put into the Incubation/IP
>Clearance procedures, as well as our per-Release IP reviews.  There is
>no shortcut to getting the kind of clarity and confidence one has with
>an approved Release.
>
>-Rob
>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
>> To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Daniel Shahaf
>> <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:11 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:06:10AM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> An SGA is between "you" and the "org", not
>>> you and the general public.  All we are doing
>>> is exercising one of the rights granted to us
>>> in the SGA- the right to public redistribution.
>>
>> Ok, I may be misunderstanding the SGA. Point 2 says:
>>
>> "You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software
>> distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive,
>> no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce,
>> prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
>> sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative
>> works."
>>
>> To me, that reads as a grant of rights to the general public in addition
>> to the rights granted to the Foundation. If I obtain code from the
>> Foundation that was provided to the Foundation under the SGA (and
>> obviously I should perform appropriate diligence to ensure that that's
>> the case), I'd have thought that I had been granted a license to
>> exercise the rights described. Are you saying that that's not the case
>> unless the copyright holder has somehow granted me an additional
>> license?
>>
>> --
>> Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
Mime
View raw message